UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-5062

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KEENAN KESTER COFIELD,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Marvin J. Garbis, Senior District
Judge. (1:04-cr-00099-MJG-1)

Submitted:

May 25, 2012

Decided:

June 8, 2012

Before WILKINSON, KING, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam

opinion.

Bruce A. Johnson, Jr., Law Offices of Bruce A. Johnson, Jr.,

Bowie, Maryland, for Appellant.
Rod J. Rosenstein, United
States Attorney, Sean C. Marlaire, Special Assistant United
States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:
Keenan

Kester

Cofield

appeals

from

the

district

courts February 23, 2011, order extending Cofields supervised

release for six months and October 26, 2011, criminal judgment
sentencing

him

to

fourteen

months

imprisonment.

For

the

reasons that follow, we dismiss in part and affirm in part.

During

Cofields

service

of

his

supervised

release,

imposed as part of his conviction for conspiracy to commit an

offense against the United States, his probation officer filed a
petition

for

revocation

of

his

supervised

release

Cofields subsequent arrest on Maryland charges.

based

on

At the hearing

on the petition, Cofields defense counsel admitted the charges

and

asked

the

district

court

to

extend

Cofields

term

of

supervised release so that Cofield could receive mental health

treatment.

The court granted Cofields request and extended his

supervised release by six months.

Nonetheless, Cofields probation officer filed another
petition for revocation of supervised release based on Cofields
arrest

on

probation

new

officers

Again, defense
district

state

court

incarceration.

charges
direction

counsel

did

sentenced
On

and

appeal,

his

of

not

failure

mental

contest

Cofield
Cofield

to

the

to

health

two

the

treatment.

charges,

fourteen

raises

follow

and

the

months

of

issues:

(1)

whether the district court erred by revoking Cofields probation

2

without an explicit, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of right

to contest the violations at both hearings; and (2) whether the
district court violated Cofields due process rights by failing
to afford him an opportunity to present evidence and question
witnesses pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1.
The Government answers that Cofields notice of appeal
is untimely as to the courts February 23, 2011, order extending
Cofields supervised release because the notice of appeal was
not filed until November 1, 2011.

Accordingly, we dismiss the

appeal as it relates to the February 23 order as parties in

criminal cases have fourteen days after the entry of judgment to
file

notice

of

appeal.

Fed.

R.

App.

P.

4(b)(1)(A)(i).

Moreover, Cofield failed to obtain an extension of the appeal

period.

Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4); United States v. Reyes, 759

F.2d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 1985).

This leaves review of the district courts October 26
criminal

judgment

imprisonment.

sentencing

Cofield

to

fourteen

months

Here, Cofield did not contest his guilt to the

revocation offenses and therefore there were no witnesses or

evidence presented under Rule 32.1.
the

district

offenses.

courts

finding

We find no plain error in

that

Cofield

committed

the

United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 73132 (1993)

(stating plain error review standard).

Accordingly,
sentence

for

violating

we

affirm
his

Cofields

supervised

conviction

release.

We

and
deny

Cofields pro se motion to allow counsel to file a supplemental

brief and dispense with oral argument as the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED IN PART,
AFFIRMED IN PART